Judges emphasized that proof in circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in homicide cases, with a critical focus on the timing of alleged events and presence of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. This is an application filed seeking bail in FIR No. 39/2020 dated 21.01.2020 registered at PS Jahangir Puri, District North-West Delhi under Section 302/120B/201/34 IPC.

2. It is stated that an FIR No. 39/2020 was registered at PS Jahangir Puri, District North-West Delhi, wherein it was mentioned that one PCR call was received regarding dead body of one 12 year old boy lying at House No. K-1136, Near Gurudwara Jh. Puri. When the I.O. reached the spot, he found the dead body of the boy, namely, Harsh @ Harshit. Another dead body of one female Pooja was also found at K-1135-36.

3. The applicant was not named in the FIR. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and her husband and the applicant was arrested on 29.01.2020.

4. As per the chargesheet, the applicant and her husband, in a pre-planned conspiracy, have committed robbery and murdered the deceased Pooja and 12 year old boy Harsh @ Harshit. The chargesheet records confession and admission of the crime by the husband and the applicant who narrated the events leading to the crime. The investigation relies on the statement of Smt. Neelam who used to clean the house of deceased, CDR analysis and CCTV footage that shows the applicant and her husband entering and leaving the house of deceased Pooja on 16.01.2020.

5. The learned ASJ on 30.11.2021 has framed charges against the applicant and her husband under Section 302/120B/201/379/411 IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the case of the prosecution at best is of circumstantial evidence to prove the theory of `last seen'1/2. The prosecution has proposed to examine the 2 witnesses, namely, Mr. Naveen Kumar (PW-4) and another witness, Smt. Neelam. It has been stated that as far as Mr. Naveen Kumar is concerned, his testimony is not reliable and he appears to be a planted witness. He claims to have visited from Bahadurgarh, Haryana to the house of the deceased at Jahangirpuri, Delhi and stated to have stayed there only for 2-3 minutes. Mr. Naveen Kumar has stated that he had seen the petitioner during his visit. There is no explanation as to why he came from such a long distance only for 2-3 minutes.

7. As regards Smt. Neelam is concerned, it is submitted that she herself has stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC that she visited the house of deceased Pooja for the last time of 15.01.2020, so she has no occasion to have seen the applicant at the house of the deceased on 16.01.2020.

8. It is submitted that in the entire case including the post-mortem, there is no whisper about the time and date of the death of the deceased. To prove a theory of `last seen'1/2, the accused and the deceased should have been seen together in close proximity at the date and time of the death.

9. It is further stated that it is an admitted fact that both the deceased and the accused were sex workers and there is nothing unusual if the petitioner was seen at the house of the deceased.

10. It is stated by Dr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant that as per the informant, Mr. Arun, who had called the Police, has specifically stated that many bad people used to visit the house of the deceased.

11. At best, the applicant is seen at the house of deceased on